Just to clarify, we're not recommending the removal of the word “toxic” at the Salt Institute, we're actually suggesting that there be another definition or another list, which would be easy to implement.
I'd also remind you--and Al said it, but it's true--that if no regulations are expected by the government or by anybody involved, you don't have to be on schedule 1 to implement a code of practice or to implement a voluntary program. Another way to skin this cat very quickly is just to have another list for those things that are voluntarily managed. That's certainly part of our recommendation.
The other thing we're recommending, which I think is also very easy to do and doesn't involve removing the word “toxic” and all the complexities that the lawyers might have with that, is we're saying to the government, when you have a problem with a substance in a particular way it's used--we call it “in context”--focus on that. If it's municipal waste water treatment plants that are the problem, get all your resources dedicated to that. If you have to list something because regulations are expected, list them in context--for instance, ammonia from municipal waste water treatment plants. It is the way the act used to be. It's much more effective at getting remedial actions faster when you focus on the nature of the problems instead of having these large categories and ending up debating over words and that kind of thing. So this is what we're recommending.